should it have been more than a caution?

I am needing clarification on the law about liscenced guns.I have a story I have been told that I am not sure the end reslut is correct.
A liscenced gun holder left his lisceneced gun in a vehicle outside someones house and then he phoned to report the owner of the house for having a gun . There is a lot of griefsome stuff around this and the call was made to cause real mischief for the house owner.
the police firstly said for the house owner to simply return the gun to its owner but as there was a bad intent they really did not wish to see the gun owner.The police did take they gun away and when they house owner asked what the end result was they said they had given him a caution.
I thought this was a major contravening of the liscence law and more action should have been taken, especially as there is a lot of on going problems between them.
Am I right to think more should have been done.
This has nothing to do with me or mine but a very dear friend .
Thankyou

stumbling goat

If I understand your story correctly, a licensed firearms holder left his/her licensed firearm in their own vehicle outside someone else's house, then reported that householder to the Police for supposedly being in possession of a unlicensed firearm, the firearm in the licence holder's car car outside the householder's house.

Is that correct?

Who got the caution?

sg

Nature'sgrafter

Also what did they get caution for
"wasting police time"
"inappropriate storage of weapon"

Ginkotree

Sorry for not being clear...
The vehicle ,with Liscened gun inside ,was left outside my friends house (which is up a lane),by the liscened gun owner in the early morning before anyone had woken at my friends house .The vehicle is part of a messy legal settlement and had to be given back. The gun owner then went back to his home and reported my friend for having a gun..
The gun owner was given a caution.

toggle

it sounds like the ploice are tying to aviod involving themselves in an existing dispute.

would the caution have any effect on the gun owner's licence?

Ginkotree

Thats what I was wondering..I thought you had to be Responsible for your gun at all times, locked cabinet when not in use and all that.It just seems that the rules are unclear here ,and as the gun owner phoned the police to report my friend for having the gun and cause stress then he is surely breaking some rule of competance somewhere?..

Treacodactyl

What was the gun and who had the keys to the car? Has your friend spoken to the police about the incident and do you know for sure if the cautioned person still has their guns?

It doesn't look like the type of case where you'll get a simple answer here as there's no way of knowing all the facts.

stumbling goat

What was the "licensed gun"?

Different laws and rules apply to different types of "gun".

sg

Ginkotree

The police were the people to get in touch with my friends first after the call from the gun owner..my friends were told that they could return the gun to the owner, they said they did not want to touch the gun and were upset the owner was trying to get my friends in trouble. the police took the gun away and my friend heard nothing more . My friend phoned to ask what the result of it all was and the police said that the gun owner had been cautioned....I dont know for what.
I did not realised there were different levels of liscencing, I thought if it was liscenced then that was it..Dont know what sort of gun either.
It just seems that the gun owner is not thinking as a responsible person right now , perhaps it is another case of until something illegally"worse" happens they cannot do anything.
I just thought I would find out as much as I could, they are worried about Making a Fuss and being thought of as paranoid, or escalating the problem by having the gun owner upset more by the questioning

Ginkotree

As far as I know the gun owner has more than one gun.The keys were left in the vehicle.

Treacodactyl

Shot guns that can be held on a shot-gun certificate are treated different to shot guns and other firearms that are held on a firearm certificate. For example, you can lend a simple double barrelled shot gun to someone with a SGC for a limited time IIRC.

Without wishing to take sides or criticise the police, firearms law is ridiculously complicated and not often understood by many people so the police may not have done anything wrong.

If your friends are seriously worried then they could seek legal advice, BASC may also be able to help as they are keen for shooters to be responsible and may wish to investigate.

Nick

I suspect there's quite a lot of this story missing, because otherwise, it sounds like a licensed gun owner is trying to plant a weapon on someone without a license. Can't imagine that kind of behaviour is in line with holding a license.

stumbling goat

Without knowing what type of "gun" was involved it is not possible to know if any offence was committed.

A licensed firearms holder who knowingly puts a non licensed person in possession of a firearm requiring a licence may commit an offence of causing or procuring that non licensed person to commit an offence of being on possession of a firearm without a licence.

Leaving a firearm insecure in a public place is another issue.

For the Police to suggest that one party returns the "firearm" to the other party would appear to indicate that it was not a firearm that requires a licence. One would hope that in the light of recent issues around firearms and people with troubled minds that the Police have taken all the necessary and appropriate steps.

All sounds like a can of worms.

sg

Ginkotree

I suspect there's quite a lot of this story missing, because otherwise, it sounds like a licensed gun owner is trying to plant a weapon on someone without a license. Can't imagine that kind of behaviour is in line with holding a license.

That is exactly IT..that is what he has done... my point, regardless of what type of gun, it is his frame of mind that I find worrying .There is a very Horrible Farmer history here that concerns me.
I think I shall perhaps advise them to get hold of the BASC. That is a gentle way of them getting things clarified and hopeful reassurance without stirring things on thier doorsteps.
With stress levels rising in so many areas it is a time to be careful , guns are not the problem, it is the person using it....and it Is Vital we keep things safe so the responsible folk can carry on with thier business.

vegplot

would the caution have any effect on the gun owner's licence?

More than likely. A caution will possibly mean he won't be able to hold a licence, at least for a while. It depends on the type of firearm.

Ginkotree

Obviously when I spoke to my friends were still in shock by it all but it was definately a gun that needed a liscence and I can get them to have more information, I have arranged to be in touch again later in the week so I shall have more to suggest to them now.It appears there are a lot of details that affect the rules and regulations and an authoritive help and guidance is needed to ensure thier reassurance.
The gun owners phonecall was an oppertunity for him to be checked out and it be His own doing...with time passed they do not want it to be Them that can be blamed for anything...so a BASC enquirey follow up might be the way forward.

Ginkotree

would the caution have any effect on the gun owner's licence?

More than likely. A caution will possibly mean he won't be able to hold a licence, at least for a while. It depends on the type of firearm.

That is reassuring..they probably have a proceedure to follow through..
Thanks for all your input on this...it is a frightening subject when folk are suffering lifes trials and not thinking rationally.

toggle

would the caution have any effect on the gun owner's licence?

More than likely. A caution will possibly mean he won't be able to hold a licence, at least for a while. It depends on the type of firearm.

then i'm wondering if the police thought a caution was something he would sign, not realising the consequence. wheras he could have claimed an honest mistake and possibly contested any charge in court. a lot of people don't know a caution is an admittance of a crime and signing one gives you a criminal record. and i'd think the best thing to do if someone is playing moron games involving firearms is to remove the guns asap.

or am i crediting the local police with too much here?

Ginkotree

Given the circumstances,My instinct was screaming for the police to go and remove all guns and I cant understand why this was not done...
Now, it has become more awkward to make that happen ..stirring up the wasp nest...but If BASC do an enquirey that could seem like it was not coming directly from my friends..

mark

I think your friends would be best to contact the police in writing and say something like...

"Could you please confirm to me that XYZ is not longer in possession of firearms. By leaving his weapon in a car outside my property and falsely reporting me for the possession of firearms he has revealed his ill will towards me and possibly some (possibly temporary) unbalance in his mind or emotional state - and has also quite possibly made a veiled threat in revealing to me that he holds these firearms.

I am naturally anxious that he might think to use his firearm against me in some way, or otherwise seek to cause me harm.

If XYZ is in possession of firearms could you please advise me of what further steps I or you could take to secure my safety and the protection of my property..

I am copying this letter to....."

I suggest it is copied to solicitor / MP / police commissioner or anyone who the police know might hold them accountable if they don't cover themselves

Nick

I donnt think the police have any business telling you what I legally own.

Perhaps a caution is enough. If it prevents him keeping a gun, with minimal cost annd hassle, is that enough?

Ginkotree

I think mark has worded the situation well for a letter..with a little tweek it could be used for the BASC perhaps, as I am not sure the police will want to follow up when they think they have dealt with the event.Shame that peoples fear for thier safety comes down to cost and hassle.
I shall tell my friends all your suggestions and then they can choose what they wish to do.

mark

I donnt think the police have any business telling you what I legally own.

Perhaps a caution is enough. If it prevents him keeping a gun, with minimal cost annd hassle, is that enough?

That was not the point of the post - it was to nudge them into ensuring that after the caution was given they ensured the firearm was no longer in his possession, and they took reasonable action to prevent any further harassment.

And apart from anything else - if you are right that you can't have a firearm after a caution (and I'm not sure of the law on that) then the police are being asked to confirm that he is not in possession of something he would be illegally (not legally) in possession of that you already know he owns (as the police even asked you to return it to him )

stumbling goat

would the caution have any effect on the gun owner's licence?

More than likely. A caution will possibly mean he won't be able to hold a licence, at least for a while. It depends on the type of firearm.

then i'm wondering if the police thought a caution was something he would sign, not realising the consequence. wheras he could have claimed an honest mistake and possibly contested any charge in court. a lot of people don't know a caution is an admittance of a crime and signing one gives you a criminal record. and i'd think the best thing to do if someone is playing moron games involving firearms is to remove the guns asap.

or am i crediting the local police with too much here?

The strength of evidence required for an "official caution" or "criminal caution" to be first considered and then offered is the same as that or a charge. An admission and a signature accepting the caution is also required for the "accused" to accept the caution, and the consequences. The issue here is that most people do not understand the terms used by the Police and in what context they are used and sometimes mean. I am sure the Police would not rely on that misunderstanding to inadvertently mislead people or fob them off with carefully worded explanations which on subsequent examination may prove to be such a misunderstanding.

that may be the official line, but i've heard of more than one instance of the police trying to bully someone into accepting a caution after a completely evidence free complaint was made.

stumbling goat

that may be the official line, but i've heard of more than one instance of the police trying to bully someone into accepting a caution after a completely evidence free complaint was made.

Really? If that were the case, then that caution/conviction would be overturned as soon as the person left the station and made a complaint about the process. The Police staff involved would be subject to discipline and most likely criminal charges.

In any of the instances you have heard about have the maligned people taken the very simple and straightforward step to get their caution or conviction revoked?

sg

Nick

In what reality is it simple?

stumbling goat

In what reality is it simple?

It is a lot simpler than trying to work out your question Nick

Perhaps you could rephrase it?

sg

Treacodactyl

that may be the official line, but i've heard of more than one instance of the police trying to bully someone into accepting a caution after a completely evidence free complaint was made.

Really? If that were the case, then that caution/conviction would be overturned as soon as the person left the station and made a complaint about the process. The Police staff involved would be subject to discipline and most likely criminal charges.

It certainly doesn't appear to be as simple as you suggest. This isn't the story I was looking for but there's several examples.

Yes, and doesn't support your statement at all. It appears once you accept a caution it can take a fair bit or time, expense and legal advice to get it lifted; not "overturned as soon as the person left the station and made a complaint about the process."

toggle

In what reality is it simple?

exactly.

vegplot

i'd think the best thing to do if someone is playing moron games involving firearms is to remove the guns asap.

Couldn't agree with you more. It gives us gun owners a bad name.

vegplot

would the caution have any effect on the gun owner's licence?

More than likely. A caution will possibly mean he won't be able to hold a licence, at least for a while. It depends on the type of firearm.

then i'm wondering if the police thought a caution was something he would sign, not realising the consequence. wheras he could have claimed an honest mistake and possibly contested any charge in court. a lot of people don't know a caution is an admittance of a crime and signing one gives you a criminal record. and i'd think the best thing to do if someone is playing moron games involving firearms is to remove the guns asap.

or am i crediting the local police with too much here?

The strength of evidence required for an "official caution" or "criminal caution" to be first considered and then offered is the same as that or a charge. An admission and a signature accepting the caution is also required for the "accused" to accept the caution, and the consequences. The issue here is that most people do not understand the terms used by the Police and in what context they are used and sometimes mean. I am sure the Police would not rely on that misunderstanding to inadvertently mislead people or fob them off with carefully worded explanations which on subsequent examination may prove to be such a misunderstanding.

Any one who is sensibly involved with firearms, either at club level or as a member of an organisation such as BASC will be, or should be, thoroughly familiar with the consequences of a caution.

Shotgun owners are probably less well informed as they neither required to be a member of a gun club or operate under the strict conditions imposed on section 1 firearms owners.

stumbling goat

that may be the official line, but i've heard of more than one instance of the police trying to bully someone into accepting a caution after a completely evidence free complaint was made.

Really? If that were the case, then that caution/conviction would be overturned as soon as the person left the station and made a complaint about the process. The Police staff involved would be subject to discipline and most likely criminal charges.

In any of the instances you have heard about have the maligned people taken the very simple and straightforward step to get their caution or conviction revoked?

sg

I should clarify and correct the earlier impression that I may have inadvertently given to say that an inappropriate caution could be overuled so soon and quite so simply. A caution could be ruled out if, following a caution having been issued, a representation was made and evidence found that the caution was inappropriate. I still think it is a simple process. And the example given about the involvement of the BASC does nothing to suggest it is complex or need be expensive.

sg

Treacodactyl

That's what I thought you meant SG but I disagree with you. In the case mentioned the police didn't back down until the chief exec of BASC met him, hardly what I'd call a simple matter. There are other examples where BASC have had to research the law and spend a large amount of time to prove the caution should not have been issued.

Anyway, the last paragraph may be relevant to the original question.

Quote:

Director of Firearms, Bill Harriman, said: "The joy on Mr Holding's face when I returned his rifle will be with me for a long time to come. The police are under great pressure to achieve Home Office targets these days and a caution may be a quick fix for an over-worked cop drowning in paperwork. Don't accept one without proper legal advice because you may come to regret it later."

stumbling goat

You are very gracious, and less literal than some perhaps, in light of my error Treacodactyl. Thank you.

Due process will have been followed and the correct and ethical result achieved. A report of the process by a party without a vested interest in the proceedings might give a more objective view of the case in question?

Nonetheless, cheers, and have

sg

Treacodactyl

A report of the process by a party without a vested interest in the proceedings might give a more objective view of the case in question?

Perhaps although the FEO's I've spoken to don't seem that happy with things they see either. If anything BASC seem to be very restrained in their reports.

For example some forces have told people to not worry that the police have not renewed certificates in time when actually this is a very serious offense resulting in 5 years prison for the gun holder.

Nick

In what reality is it simple?

It is a lot simpler than trying to work out your question Nick

Perhaps you could rephrase it?

sg

I think it's been answered.

My point is that it's not simple, or easy for many people who've run run into trouble with the law to suddenly realise there may have been a mistake, and they can get it erased and put right. Your hardened, experienced criminal, with all the nous and ability to use the system to get a brief isn't going to accept a caution off the bat, nor be offered one. Most people who are cautioned are first time offenders, with a degree of respect for the law, and an acceptance that they did wrong, and got off lightly. I would suggest its a rare person that would then go on to have the mental and financial fortitude to fight back and have it over turned.

What is simple on paper doesn't reflect real life for many people.

To rephrase the question, if it's simple to have a caution over turned and police officers disciplined, and face criminal charges, can you supply multiple examples for this?

As I say, I think the ground's been covered, but I answer for completeness.

stumbling goat

Nick - To answer your specific question, no I can not supply multiple examples, not even one. Because I know of none, and do not claim to know of any. I stand by my assertion that the process is relatively simple, and quick.

But "simple" for some may be complex for others.

I answer for completeness also.

sg

toggle

the process may in theory be simple and quick, but in theory, no one should be facing bullying to sign a caution and this can happen.